The older and more historical minded members of the cabinet (ie Kenneth Clarke, the lord chancellor) have repeatedly compared yesterday's carnage to the Geddes Axe, the cuts imposed by Lloyd George in 1921 in an attempt to rein back public expenditure and waste in the wake of the first world war.

But the comparison only half works. Lloyd George, according to cabinet minutes at the time, was intent on ensuring he did not have the blood on his hands and subcontracted the task to a businessman, Sir Eric Geddes, the cabinet minutes read: "The prime minister himself, in the present overwhelming pressure of public affairs, could not possibly devote his personal attention to the details of departmental expenditure. The same was true of the lord privy seal and the chancellor of the exchequer. Other ministers urgently needed a holiday and could not possibly devote their vacation to this task. Moreover, the delicate position of a minister at the head of one spending department criticising a minister at the head of another was indicated."

This time David Cameron and George Osborne have dipped their hands in blood, as has the rest of the "Quad": the Lib Dems Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander.

Yesterday's statement is their collective judgment call. This is a coalition spending review. Clegg confirmed as much to his party members on Tuesday: "Liberal Democrat ministers have been involved every step of the way. Our values and priorities are written through the review, like the message in a stick of rock."

Aided by a sympathetic press, the coalition has been astute in framing the popular debate. As one cabinet member said: "George shrewdly managed expectations so the public heard of 40% cuts. The political decisions are wise. We protected health and education and attacked welfare, which is where the public are.

"But along the way we have now to be braced for cuts that go wrong, individual decisions that morph into something that had not been anticipated. But the main thing was the Quad had a political strategy, and stuck to it."

Three messages central to the strategy have been repeated time and again in the most reasonable of tones: the cuts are not an ideological Thatcherite choice, but an inevitability; the cuts are being administered fairly – even the Queen is taking her hit; and there is appalling waste in the public sector that needs bold reform, funked by the previous government.

All these key messages, retailed by Andy Coulson, the Downing Street press guru, were on display in Cameron's performance at prime minister's questions, just before Osborne' spending review. "We are not doing this because we want to; there is no ideological zeal in doing this. We are doing this because we have to," he said. "We are in this together."

And last: "The opposition do not have a plan, and you cannot attack a plan unless you have one yourself. If all you can do is come up with extra taxes for extra spending, you are completely irrelevant to the debate."

Politically, so far, this messaging has worked. Few would have expected the coalition to reach the eve of the spending review with its poll rating so strong. Despite rises in VAT, tuition fee increases, £11bn of cuts in June, and forecast departmental cuts of 25% for the rest of parliament, the Tories, says the last YouGov poll, stand on 42%, Labour 39%, Lib Dem 11%. Since the end of the conference season the Tories have had a three- to four-point lead.

The public has bought much of the message. Before the spending review, YouGov found 60% saw the forthcoming cuts as unavoidable and 48% saw the former Labour government as bearing more of the blame. Just over 85% expected public services to suffer, but only 25% thought Labour had a serious alternative.

It is also a tribute to Osborne that, apart from defence, he has controlled leaks, hidden the internal battles and conveyed a real sense of partnership with Cameron. To achieve this kind of reshaping of the state, and to have two independent political parties on board, is a rare achievement, indicating a unity of purpose that will stand the coalition in good stead for the future.

Yet Osborne was forced to keep some decisions until very late. He had planned to cut child benefit for 16- to 19-year-olds right up until Friday, but backed off as it looked too anti-family. The decision forced him through fancy accounting to revise upwards by £1.5bn the estimate of the revenues due from removing child benefit from higher-rate taxpayers.

Osborne also found Cameron blocking the removal of emergency weather payments, and Clegg preventing cuts to free childcare for three- to four-year-olds.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, also faced down a Treasury plan to prevent a freeze in benefits, or to hit the most vulnerable groups inside the employment support allowance. Welfare had already taken a £11bn hit by 2014-15 in the June budget, and Duncan Smith did not want to give more.

But his bottom line in the summer was to get agreement for his universal credit, including £2bn over four years to fund the scheme. Once he had that deal he offered up a further £3.5bn savings in the spending review.

As a consequence the Treasury is now forecasting welfare spending to fall in real terms over four years in contrast to the 45% real terms rise over the past decade. Duncan Smith stood at the bar of the Commons as Osborne made his statement, confident he had won his case for welfare reform. But he now faces a massive challenge: delivering a complex scheme and retaining Treasury support.

The other great leap in the dark is the change to social housing. Social landlords are for the first time to be given the freedom to raise rents to 80% of market levels and introduce time-limited tenancies.

Osborne said that the new flexibilities would allow 150,000 affordable homes to be built over the next four years, coupled with £4.4bn of investment – a 50% cut on current levels. The idea is that social landlords will be able to borrow more on the basis of higher rental income. To keep the housing benefit bill down, councils can manage their allocations so they do not have to prioritise the unemployed. It is a massive gamble just as housing benefit is being capped.

Beyond these big, long-term reforms, Osborne had a very political message, claiming the average 19% departmental cuts are the same as Labour planned. In short, it is not quite as painful as all that.

The figures on which these comparisons are based were challenged by the Institute Fiscal Studies, which claims that across all departments Labour would have cut by 12% and Osborne by 14%.

Perhaps the political point scoring was the least impressive part of yesterday. At the end of Osborne's speech the sight of Tory MPs cheering and waving their order papers as public sector workers face the dole, the pension age rises and the poorest unemployed lose as much as £50 a week was pretty unedifying. In the months and years ahead, it is an instinctive reaction some Tories will come to regret.